But don't worry, Krugman hasn't really changed his mind. He poses the question: "What would happen if we unveiled a program that looked like Obamacare, in a place that looked like America, but with competent project management that produced a working website?" Then he answers it: "Well, your wish is granted. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you California."

All right, take California. Please. In the Golden State, according to Krugman, "Obamacare is looking pretty good":

For one thing, enrollment is surging. At this point, more than 10,000 applications are being completed per day, putting the state well on track to meet its overall targets for 2014 coverage. Just imagine, by the way, how different press coverage would be right now if Obama officials had produced a comparable success, and around 100,000 people a day were signing up nationwide.

Equally important is the information on who is enrolling. To work as planned, health reform has to produce a balanced risk pool--that is, it must sign up young, healthy Americans as well as their older, less healthy compatriots. And so far, so good: in October, 22.5 percent of California enrollees were between the ages of 18 and 34, slightly above that group's share of the population.

What we have in California, then, is a proof of concept. Yes, Obamacare is workable--in fact, done right, it works just fine.

Of course in 1999 Krugman assured the world that Enron was working just fine too. But that's an argumentum ad hominem. Let's turn to the substance of California's "success."

Barack Obama sold ObamaCare with lies and damned lies. Now Krugman purports to back them up with statistics. The bit about the young California applicants appeared earlier in a Times news story: "Officials said 18- to 34-year-olds made up 22.5 percent of the nearly 31,000 Californians who selected a private health plan in October. The same age group makes up 21 percent of the state's population."

The implication is that the problem of "adverse selection" has not materialized: Young, healthy people are in fact signing up and paying inflated premiums that will subsidize artificially low premiums for the older and sicker.

ENLARGE

To be sure, the surfing is better in California.
Getty Images

But such a claim is bunk. While Covered California does report that "18-34 year olds are applying in very similar proportion to the population," it also acknowledges that the "oldest age brackets, 45-64, are overrepresented compared to the population." That's because two groups are enormously underrepresented: adults over 65, almost all of whom are covered by Medicare, and children under 18, who already had a high eligibility threshold (family income at 250% of the poverty line) for Medi-Cal, the Golden State's version of Medicaid.

Covered California's main potential customer base is not the population as a whole but the nonelderly adult population--that is, those between 18 and 64. Nonelderly adults make up just 62.1% of California's population, according to census data (27.3% of Californians are under 18 and 10.6% 65 or over). Of the 30,830 Californians who enrolled in insurance plans through Covered California in October, fully 95% are nonelderly adults. (Of the remaining 5%, almost all are children on their parents' family plans.)

If we limit our calculations to the nonelderly adult population, the number of individuals who enrolled in October drops slightly, to 29,113. Of those, 2,344 are between 18 and 25 (many also on their parents' family plans) and 4,580 between 26 and 34, for a total of 6,924. Thus the truthful formulation is as follows: 18- to 34-year-olds make up 33.8% of the Golden State's nonelderly adult population but were only 23.8% of the fewer than 30,000 nonelderly adult Californians who enrolled in October.

Related Video

Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on why the Golden State's exchanges aren't as successful as touted. Photo: coveredca.com

Further, merely signing up young people isn't sufficient to avoid adverse selection. You have to sign up young healthy people (healthy for obvious reasons, young because age is directly correlated with the likelihood of soon becoming sick).

A representative sample of young people will be healthy and likely to stay that way for some time. But there is no reason to expect that the self-selected sample of young people who've undertaken the effort and expense of signing up for ObamaCare is representative. Sick people of any age have the greatest incentive to sign up. And the smaller the sample, the likelier it is to be skewed by selection bias.

Note that the total October enrollment of 30,830 comes to fewer than 1,000 a day, an order of magnitude smaller than the current pace of 10,000 a day claimed by Krugman. That, however, turns out not to be an apples-to-apples comparison. The 10,000-a-day figure, Covered California explains, is for "completed applications," not actual enrollments, which totaled just 79,891 between Oct. 1 and Nov. 19. (A partial explanation for the disparity: Covered California estimates that 39% of applicants will be enrolled in Medi-Cal, so that their coverage will be completely at taxpayer expense.)

It remains to be seen whether even October's less-impressive-than-advertised age distribution will hold up into November and beyond. Meanwhile, blogger Robert Laszewski puts the overall numbers into perspective:

• California has 5.3 million uninsured eligible to buy in the exchange with half estimated to be subsidy eligible.

• California is cancelling another 1.1 million people of which Covered California has estimated 510,000 qualify for a subsidy they can only get if they go to Covered California. At least 80% need to act by December 23 to avoid losing their coverage.

• The state is spending $250 million in federal money to get people signed up--dramatically more than any other state.

• The Covered California goal is to sign-up 500,000 to 700,000 subsidy eligible people by March 31.

Why should we be so impressed with Covered California because they have signed-up [just under] 80,000 people so far? Or, even that their goal is to sign-up 500,000 to 700,000 of the state's 6.4 million people--half subsidy eligible--who are uninsured or having their insurance canceled?

It's a rhetorical question, but we'll answer it anyway: Because ObamaCare as a whole is such a catastrophe that even Covered California looks good by comparison.

There but for the Grace of the IRS Goes He Remember Tom Daschle? He was elected to the Senate from South Dakota in 1986 and served as Democratic leader from 1995 until 2005, when he left office after losing his bid for a fourth term to Republican John Thune. He returned to the public eye briefly in 2009, when President-elect Obama nominated him to serve as secretary of health and human services. But he withdrew his nomination over unpaid income taxes, and Kathleen Sebelius got the job.

TalkingPointsMemo's Dylan Scott evidently thought it would be interesting to know what Daschle thinks of the ObamaCare catastrophe, so Scott landed an interview with Daschle. Having read the interview, we agree it would be interesting to know Daschle's thoughts on the subject. But as a loyal Democrat and a Washington consultant who, Scott notes, "advises clients on a range of issues, including health care," he has no incentive to be candid. Maybe the next reporter to interview him could ply him with liquor or sodium pentathol.

The interview does, however, contain this classic of obfuscatory political jargon:

What about the political stumbles? Do you think the administration could have better prepared people for what was coming, especially regarding canceled plans and the website's problems?

A lot of things could have been done differently, including the messaging. But the administration clearly wanted to keep their message as simple as they could. They had to go through a very difficult election in 2012, and they've been battling Republicans on messaging from the very introduction of the legislation.

One of the real laws of good messaging is simplicity and repetition, so they chose simplicity and repetition. You can look back and say: Could it have been more accurate, more complete or more compelling? That's something that we'll probably continue to ask ourselves and debate for a long period of time.

To translate Daschle's answer into plain English: Obama had to lie through his teeth about ObamaCare because Republicans were threatening to tell the truth about it.

Out on a Limb "HealthCare.gov Estimates May Be Misleading"--headline, FactCheck.org, Nov. 22

We Blame George W. Bush "A 31-Year-Old Is Tearing Apart the Heritage Foundation: Think Republicans have been making fools of themselves? Blame Michael Needham."--headline and subheadline, The New Republic website, Nov. 24

With DNC in Mind, City Bans Carrying Urine, Feces "There's a term of art that the Obama White House uses to describe its neurotic supporters who instantly race to the worst-case scenario: They are known as 'bed-wetters.' Two months into the dysfunctional life of healthcare.gov, however, that seems a perfectly appropriate physiological reaction."--Franklin Foer, The New Republic website, Nov. 24

At first, and even second glance, you don't know if they're real or not.

A man on Detroit's west side is so serious about home security, he's using CPR dummies to help him.

The dummies are dressed as gang members .

They stand and sit by his front door in an enclosed porch and you can't miss them.

"I saw someone on the east side doing this and now I'm doing it. The police stop, look, knock and tell me what a good idea this is," the man told Local 4.

He won't reveal his name and only agreed to share his security secrets if we don't share what street he lives on.

The accompanying video does, however, reveal what the house and the dummies look like. Presumably neighborhood crooks would recognize it. The homeowner must be counting on them never to have stolen a TV set.

Krugman typical Soviet apparatchik.Censorship about similar level.But very weak in enforcement department.In USSR after you officially contradict party line couple people will knock in your door.So far I was forbidden to express my opinion in commentary section of his columns.No knocks

Krugman claims that ObamaCare is signing up the requisite portion of young Californians who will be paying in more than the take out. Taranto says that half of that statistical group will get subsidies. By offering a broad statistic that masks the inherent details, was Krugman telling the whole truth, only part of the truth, or just trading on a long ago achievement to shill for socialism.

The most telling damnation of ObamaCare is the exemption that Comrade O granted the bureaucracy. Every American should be outraged that the bureaucracy was not required to use the exchanges and either pay the cost increases or give themselves a very public pay increase to cover the gap. Even more important, and more horrid to the politbureau, was the prospect of losing one's doctor because of ObamaCare restrictions on Qualifications and payments.

In a true socialist utopia, the leaders go to the back of the line and they eat the same gruel as the unwashed. Don't hold your breath for that from the likes of Reid, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, or Krugman.

Yeah the question was probably worded something like, "Disregarding the merits. do you think Obama has a vision for the country?" Or "Do you think Obama cares more about average people or republicans?".

Mr. Taranto is not 'inventing' a context. He is simply pointing out that the number of 'young, healthy people' who must enroll to 'bankroll' CoverCalifornia is, to date, inadequate. That the number who've enrolled to date taken in isolation may be accurate isn't germane.

As to the polls, I haven't seen one in the last month that suggests much support for Obamacare outside the cadre of people who might be expected to support it.

Washington should replace the statue of Victory over the Capitol Dome to the Tooth Fairy...and require all future oaths of Office be solemnly made to her....over a copy of the ACA while standing on one foot with both hands fingers crossed.....

could anybody get to the bottom of this article's arcane parsing of facts and figures without their eyes glazing over to actually understand Taranto's point? Though it all, he never disputes the crux of Krugman's assertions directly or in fact, but attempts to affix a qualifier to dilute them. Is the effort worth our time, or his?

I heard an interesting piece on the radio yesterday, an interview with author Thomas E. Patterson who has written a book, "Informing The News: The Need For Knowledge-Based Journalism". He argues that, in this age where spin is so prevalent that polls show Americans seem to hold alternate views of reality, and facts and figures are routinely cited without challenge or demand for verification, that journalists need to be more knowledgeable and informed about the subjects they cover, in order not to continue to misinterpret them and to be vulnerable to manipulation by their sources. You might take CSPAN, for instance, where the partisan-du-jour rehashes familiar talking points to a completely passive moderator, or "experts" seem to do little more than parrot the prevailing views of the hour.

One would think a journalist's duty is to inform. So what are we to make of people like James Taranto, who seems to sit down at the word processor asking himself, "What can I say bad about the administration today?" before he types a word? What takes precedence, the desire to push an agenda, or the desire to inform?

Bob Beckel, talking about redistributing wealth on The Five yesterday with the Lovelies Kimberly Guilfoyle and Dana Perino (as well as the guys, Eric and Greg), illustrated perfectly why the progressives keep making the wrong decisions regarding economic policy. Bob said that redistributing wealth was a good idea because it was a zero sum game and those with less should be given more.

But the economy is NOT a zero sum game unless the government hinders it so much that it can't grow. A growing economy grows the pie. The sum continuously increases. More wealth can be earned or acquired by all. The extra salary or earnings that acrue to a wealthy man do not mean that the less wealthy man cannot also earn more.

Or, as I have said, redistributing wealth diminishes wealth, thus turning it into a zero sum game or worse.

The true test will be when the insurance companies and big pharma that wrote the ACA abandon it because they realize they "chose unwisely" in drinking the water from the holy grail offered to them by Obama. Until then, the Republicans can flap their wings, but nothing will happen until the pain gets to the people who elected Obama and his mignons in the Congress.

If Taranto's goal is to sit down at the word processor (circa 1980 I guess Robert?) then my guess is it takes him about 1.3 seconds to POINT OUT what is wrong with this Administration, don't you think? I mean, ObamaCare, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, NSA, Syria, now Iran. The economy including high unemployment, increasing cost of education-food-clothes-energy, higher taxes, lower wages...along with losing credibility with allies like Israel, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt?? I mean, does it take Mr. Taranto or anyone with half a brain to sit down at a word processor, or more likely for people of this century, maybe a computer, tablet, or smart phone Robert, to document Obama's non-stop lies,failures, and cover ups (not necessarily in that order)? They are so blatant that it's easy for anyone much less someone with the resources Mr. Taranto has at his disposal to document and convey to the American public that Obama is a complete failure. How can you deny any of the above or dispute what Mr. Taranto is saying?.

And by the way, do you really think a journalist at the NY Time's doesn't invoke their own bias into every supposed "news" story? For example, ever notice when they report on page 1 that a politician did something immoral or illegal that they will immediately identify them as Republican - if they are. YET, if it's a Democrat, the same offense will be reported on page 16 and the party affiliation is not even mentioned. How do you reconcile that obvious bias in reporting? The WSJ's integrity and "desire to inform" as you call it is so much more credible than the NY Times, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS that it's not even close! When you talk about pushing an agenda for Obama and Democrats, please put at the top of the list, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Ed the dope, Wolf Blitzer, 60 minutes, Katie Couric, everyone in Hollywood, every Union head, most newspapers, and just about every single main stream media outlet AND THE WORST OFFENDER DEFENDING EVERYTHING OBAMA - PAUL KRUGMAN - before attacking the WSJ and their reporters. And finally, since you've been reading Best of the Web for some time now, why do you think Taranto is somehow obligated to strictly report the "news". The guy has been editorializing since he's been doing this blog. Don't you get it? So to you, Krugman can make stuff up to defend Obama even when it's not true and Taranto is not allowed to point out the falsehoods - ok lies - in Krugman's comments? Typical Lefty.

Taranto, who seems to sit down at the word processor asking himself, "What can I say bad about the administration today?"

In my years of reading this column, that is not my impression, and I think you are way off base. Most of the columns are refutations - not so much of the administration itself, but of the partisan cheerleaders that surround and support it - Krugman being one such.

You say you want the press to be an objective body - holding speakers accountable and not just being mindless parrots. Well, that's exactly what Mr. Taranto is doing with Krugman and the "targets" of his columns. He takes their partisan-induced propaganda and dissects it to reveal the untruths hiding within.

The former shows you are honest - not only to others, but more importantly, with yourself. The latter statement merely shows that you are close-minded. It is no wonder that you don't "get it". You don't want to.

I will violate my normal policy of not replying to non-members as this is important. First, Tanranto target's the white house and their policies (and those that support their policies) because it is a target rich environment. Second, his very logical and accurate dissection of the "facts" as promulgated by the administration, their cheerleaders in the media, et al is very much needed. Their statements - if taken as accurate- would leave many to believe that the policy principles that the ACA relies on could work - but if one scratches a little deeper as Taranto did you can see that they will not work.

Why is this important? Within 2-3 years, all of the exchanges will be applying for bailouts because they will be losing money.

The point is that the 'statistics' are presented out of their proper context - assuming one is willing to trust the accuracy of what CoverCalifornia reports.

Sadly for the Obama administration, Mr. Taranto's jibes and critiques are on point 99.9% of the time. If his agenda is speaking truth about power it's to be expected some will be made uncomfortable by his assertions.

The other day somebody made the point that Redistributing Wealth sounds good to many (Libs) because it sounds like you are taking money from the Wealthy. The issue is that most of the policies that are suppose to be Redistributing the Wealth are hitting the middle class not the wealthy.

Great post, Brooks! I enjoy The Five, and I usually get some eye-rolling exercise courtesy of Bob Beckel. One day he was criticizing Republicans for not being articulate. That day my eyes really got a workout since most of his comments on the show sound like a walrus blubbering.

The progressive idea of redistribution of assets is the most efficient way to wealth equality in that it makes everyone poorer. Whether it is in education, income, politics, law, etc. it seems as though the left wants to lower the bar of expectations and bring everyone down to a subordinate level. If some guy is busting his hump to build a business by working 60-70 hours a week he expects a reward of higher income. If much of that income is then taken away, what's his incentive? He can park his previously hard working butt under a Cinzano umbrella and sip lattes and become European. The problem with a large part of the population in America is that this idea is really appealing. But we are heading towards the "European Model" by being the brokest nation in the history of broke nations. Thatcher said that Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money. Well we have done that before we even started down the road towards "equality."

Debra, so the fact that barely 100,000 votes out of over 5.1 million votes swung it to Obama with 50.1% is what you call "support" for Obama? Too funny.. Yep.. why that rates right up there with LANDSLIDE, right?

Well, it's happening in Ohio. This may be typical: those working for companies retaining their plans (for the moment) have learned their family plan premiums are doubling - most working class families don't have that much flex in their budgets. Those starting new jobs are learning that existing family plan premiums are up to four times higher. They are unlikely to qualify for 'subsidies' under Obamacare. Some are choosing to go without insurance...some are letting other bills go unpaid to cover treatment deductibles.

Looks to me like JT is bending over backwards to skew (or invent) a "context" to suit his inevitable and constant point, that the public rejects the ACA, DESPITE the numbers. ("See! Krugman misleads! Five year old children are NOT signing up! They're avoiding the exchanges! ")The figures themselves, though, are not in dispute.

I have a feeling that James is pulling off a George K. (i.e. the troll of Bush wars and WMD fame) in that he is using a very parsed definition of redistribution of wealth that includes any asset transfer. Hey, at least he is not going off on how the Jews are all behind it and how we are all AskeNazis.

Well, those 500,00 votes meant Ohio ended up in Obama's bucket. We are taught by the Senate that one vote can be all it takes to 'win' the day; that certainly seems to be the President's attitude with regard to elections. Of course, 50.1% if the vote doesn't typically 'count' as a landslide; but, again, I don't think that matters to the President. Isn't his mantra, 'elections have consequences'?

Yes. Dragon speech software is great but not perfect and i need to pay more attention to what it says i'm saying. Thanks. The Pubs may be small in many ways, but dainty not. Just like their pals across the aisle.

Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses have been specially designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude to danger. At the first hint of trouble, they turn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you.http://hhgproject.org/entries/perilsensitivesunglasses.html

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.